Thank you! I’ve reread the chapter on this subject in my textbook multiple times and struggled with understanding the wording. This video has helped me to better understand Aristotles stance.
Hello, I'm a beginner in philosophy and, of course, already in love with Aristotle. You video was very useful for me, thank you for making it. Best wishes!
One of the most remarcable things that classical philosophers actually state about the soul is that the Soul does not need of Logic to Discern from good and bad, from right and wrong. This is so outstanding because it means that Soul does not need to rationalize like humans does, intead it simply knows the difference and can act upon that and perhaps upon humans. A whole theory for human philosophy, metaphisics, spirituality and evolution can be made out of this.
Consciousness, perception and thinking. A theory of mind Plato 1. Plato's Mind (the One, the Self) is the cause agent, the singular cybernetic control point, of all perception, thinking and doing in the universe, where control is top down from Mind. 2. Plato's Mind is timeless and spaceless, and being the only Reality, time and space are not ultimately real, but are artificial constructions. 3. Since Mind is mental, not physical, all control and causation is mental, not physical, and top down, since Mind is the singular (cybernetic) control point at the top. 4. Thus Mind plays the brain like a violin, not the reverse. 5. Man's mind (small m) is a passive mental subset, or monad, of Mind and under its own control. 6. This monad (our mind) is the mental correspondent of the brain and controls it. Our mind controls our brain/body like a robotic structure. 7. Thinking is the intentional action of Mind (and thus mind) on mental entities such as ideas, manipulating and transforming them intentionally (through will). 8. Qualia are simply sensory experiences, the conversion by Mind of sensory nerve signals into mental sensory experiences in a fashion similar to the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental images. 9.. AQs Dennett has explained, In materialist thinking, there is no end to homunculi viewing the universe through a chain of homunculi. Leibniz terminates this infinite regress by making the last viewer the Self , which is at a higher level and suitably equipped. 10. Perception occurs as Mind converts physical sensory signals in the brain into mental experiences in one's mind. 11. These experiences can be made conscious (are made aware) by reperceiving or thinking them. This is called apperception by Leibniz. Thus consciousness is apperception. (making sense of present reality through habitually constructed individual experiences) 12. The universe, according to Leibniz, is viewed directly by the One (the Self, the ONLY true perceiver), which views these scenes discretely and in sequence (analogous to snapshots) at discrete points as a whole indirectly through the totality of individual monads, and from their own perspectives. 13. This totality of sets of individual perceptions is then distributed in the proper order and perspective to each of the monads in the universe. 14. These individual sets are called "perceptions", and must be distributed in this indirect fashion by Mind because each monad, in order to remain an individual, has no "windows", to use Leibniz's term. 15. The perceptions are made up of what the monad would see of its nearby neighbors if it were allowed to do so (external environment experience) . This is purely mental, but allows us to speak in terms of spacial distances and directions, through these snapshots, between physical bodies, which Mind, being spaceless, cannot actually directly. 16. Mind is also timeless, so that time is physically "created" as an artifact through the actual motions of physical bodies in physical spacetime. 15. Intelligence is the nonphysical ability to freely make autonomous choices. It is a faculty of nonphysical Mind, the Nothing out of which the physical universe exploded in the Big Bang. 17. Another name for this nonphysical intelligence is "life." Leibniz maintained that the entire universe is alive. 18. Each monad is perpetual, created at the beginning of the universe and only annihilated by Mind. 19. Since monads can contain other monads, they can. as plants do through seeds, and humans do through sexual reproducxtion, produce subsequent generations. 20. A robot or computer has no Mind or Self which has the wide bandwidth, intelligence and intentionality to actually perceive , think, or do things, such as Mind does. So, being without Mind, computers can have no actual intelligence or life. (without consciousness) 21. The current theory of mind is materialist. In contrast to the above, it uses the usual decapitated, mindless, or where mind is at best an abstract entity, not a living presence as in the above. The materialist model of perception, thinking and doing, being Mindless, is dead.
Prof. Chris, This is great. I've been curious about Barnes for a while now; I'll definitely have to check him out. What's really fascinating is the point that it is not the soul which makes us "unique." I suppose, then, we would have to push back further to the self or "I" _which is manifested by the hylomorphic composite_ as the basis of personality. CSL is often *mis*-quoted as having said, "You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." But it is in fact the _person_ or _self_ or _ego_ which "has" both a body _and_ a soul. I like trying to see if I can identify any of the books on your shelves. Spotted two so far. Hope all's swell. pax deorum, Iohannes Trevorianus
According with my ignorance, one possible answer is that of concept historical: the human being belongs to movement cyclic of kosmos. That notion of human being 'individual' in society greek is problematic. (I hope I did not say bullshit).
Aristotle obtained his concepts regarding the soul from the Bhagavad Gita and various Brahman Priests teachings circa 1700BC . These teaching introduced the world to the concept of - One incorporeal God, and we souls being separate to God the Supreme Soul. The faculties of the soul, Mind, Intellect, Resolves and the qualities of the soul (the virtues)
Professor Chris, this is an excellent video. I am currently attending Loyola Marymount University and am having difficulty in understanding the material. Is there anyway I can get tutored on Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas and Kierkegaard. Please let me know if such thing is possible. I really appreciate it
I think _Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction_ by Jonathan Barnes is a good introductory text. People I know also speak highly of Mortimer Adler's _Aristotle For Everybody_, but I'm not as familiar with it. You might start with those two.
So basically, the soul offers us the capability to live and act at the same time. In between these are our basic human senses that guide humans to act - or as Aristotle wrote, not to act or have potential to act as well. Human agency path of sorts?
You could say that when one dies physically, they no longer need the Power of Nutrition and the Power of sensation/motion and are left with only the Power of intellect. Now because the Power of nutrition and Power of motion are both PHYSICAL, perhaps the Power of intellect lives on somehow after the physical death.
Or it is more indirect. You live, you write a book with some of your thoughts captured on paper, you die, and your thoughts live on as long as the book is intact and intelligible. This is at least true for Aristotle^^
its sounds like Aristotle's theory of the soul is compatible with non-reductive physicalism or panpsychism (the panpsychist would just say the all extant physical forms possess some proto-mental properties which is transmitted to the form of whatever they compose)
Regarding the question posed at 3:55, not only can Christianity work with this concept of the soul, but it fits the Bible far better than the idea of the soul as commonly portrayed. In Ezekiel 18:4, for instance, the Bible speaks of souls dying. The word soul is repeatedly used in the Bible as if it were the entire person, just as Aristotle described, rather than as if it were meant in some dualist sense. And scriptures such as Ecclesiastes 9:5 state that those who are dead know nothing, again in line with this view of the soul. And while the Bible gives multiple accounts of resurrections, these accounts make no reference to the person (or their soul) going anywhere during the time in between their death and resurrection.
Definitely seems to fit. How do you incorporate the comment of Jesus regarding "fear not he who can kill the body but not the soul, rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hades(grave??)?? Just curious, it's a search for me. Have always considered both Aristotelian and Platonic perspectives may be true.
Ferb - i've read a lot of comments most are smoke and mirrors in layman terms, but you sir actually made a few points, i see why a "body" = matter never argued your point.. "Truth" so far the few that did responded 👉 agreed... thanks
In the Bible we are constructed of body soul and spirrit. Not dualistic. Body obviously what it is, soul which is mind,will,emotions, conciousness all of that and spirrit which God communicates with which we cannot access. The battle is for the soul, the body will die.
Is the will of the power of Frederich Nietzche and the self-actualization of Aristotle the same or different? Like, It makes sense that the purpose of life: Actualizing my soul as much I can throughout the whole of my expectancy of life.
You can make a connection: both Nietzsche & Aristotle are concerned with making humans as excellent as possible. I do not think they are the same, though. Nietzsche's will to power is far more individualist, and Nietzsche seems to reject objective standards of excellence.
i kinda disagree with Aristotle binary view of human and animal souls. It is a gradient and animals can in fact do things we cant, just not involving abstract reasoning (as far as we know). Usually pertaining to senses. Also there is some evidence that some animals might have better memories, a broader range of emotions they can feel, and even different universal grammar (ex. dolphin language)
Aristotle didn't really regard human & animal souls as a binary so much as links in a "Great Chain of Being" (Latin scholars named this 'Evolution'), of which inanimate matter forms the base, then growing things, then animals, understanding that "Man is a social animal", with the realm of thought a 'link' emerging from social animals. Science only recently confirmed that every Orca pod has its own dialect, but the ancients knew every wolf pack has its own howl: in this, social animals are close to us on the communication gradient: ie. we're born able to mimic the 'music' of our mother tongue, having heard it in the womb, thus we bond/link with the society, and thus persist regional accents/howls.
There's not a single line in the book that states that only humans have the intellectual soul. On the contrary, he states that there are a few animals that can think, but not only one...
The Soul is attached to the body by the umbilical cord of light essence as we sin the soul moves up and up away from the body,the soul does exist without he body, how can anyone think different.
There has to be an Afterlife if there is reincarnation. It would make no sense at all. Because it's the real you the soul that reincarnates. There had to be a resting period. For the soul to look back. At that life just lived. To go over it's karma and what it did well or what it needs to work on.
I find myself confused by exactly how Aristotle uses the term form, or what he means by "formal cause" (which I take to be connected.) Often this is explained via the analogy of the statue, and the formal cause is identified as the shape of the statue. The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy says "the formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue." This leads my mind to think of the formal cause as the physical arrangement or pattern of objects, which seems to work for non-living things. However, as you and other sources mention, for Aristotle the soul is the form of a living thing, which seems to contradict the notion that formal cause is the shape or arrangement of an object (the calf is not shaped like a bull, the seed doesn't have the physical arrangement of the oak). If the soul of a living thing isn't it's physical arrangement, what precisely is it? It's definition (a thinking animal)? But definition is not the same thing as shape, so how would that work for the Stanford encyclopedia's demonstration?
Good question. Form cannot mean just shape, though that is the language Aristotle uses to describe it. I sometimes speak of formal cause as the 'identity' of a thing, the most obvious answer to 'what is it?' With living things, this is the sort of life the thing enjoys or acts out. A cat is a cat because it has the form (soul, life-principle) of a cat. Having this distinguishes it from a cat-shaped arrangement of bone, flesh & fur. The living cat is alive precisely in the way its arranged parts work together to do cat-things: run, hunt, sense, etc. With living things, it may also help to speak of the formal cause as that which living things have and dead things lack. The living cat has some active principle of unity in it (it heals injury, resists decay, etc.), which the dead cat no longer has. Hope this helps a bit.
You write: "With living things, it may also help to speak of the formal cause as that which living things have and dead things lack. The living cat has some active principle of unity in it (it heals injury, resists decay, etc.), which the dead cat no longer has." Is this some sort of "elan vital" or "qi", a life-force if you will (or life-principle as you said), or is it something less mysterious than that? I think my modern notions of biology, DNA, animal classifications, etc. are getting in the way of me thinking appropriately about this. I find it hard to match my word usages to Aristotle's ancient usage. Also, I really appreciate your response. Your channel is excellent.
Thank you very much. I avoid speaking of "elan vital," or some other mysterious "life force," for just the reason you mention. I think we often come at these questions with an implicit reductionist assumption that the best and most comprehensive explanation will be scientific and empirical. So when we think of life we think of DNA and other material explanations. I think for Aristotle, the soul is not something mysterious or difficult to discover. It is evident in the observable activity of living things, in the experience of 'life.' Perhaps we struggle because there is no easy way to capture these insights in modern materialist concepts. We have to learn a new conceptual vocabulary.
Could the soul from an Aristotelian perspective be the organizing substance of form with potential contained that is interfered with by subconscious patterning. Life is the struggle between programming and the organizing substance with the potential of becoming aware of a truer self that is more Platonic in nature?
The Bible in Genesis 2:7 states that: Man is the embodied breath of God. In Job 32:8 the Bible defines the human mind as this embodied breath of God, as the human spirit. Ecclesiastes 12:7 states the divisibility of human nature, into body and spirit, the disembodiment of the breath of God. Some Christian denominations such as the Seventh Day Adventists teach the Aristotelian view that Man is indivisible, unity of body mind and spirit. There are logical difficulties reconciling indivisibility of human nature with the Biblical resurrection, indivisibility implies extinction of the human person at death, so the only logical possibility is re-creation. For Christians re-creation poses insurmountable logical contradictions, regarding individuals continuity from this life to resurrected life in eternity. Martin Luther condemns Aristotle for teaching that the soul ceases to exist with the death of the body. Christian faith rests on surviving death through resurrection, see 1 Corinthians ch15.
This is my goal - to rewrite Human Theology according to Platonic views you see Religion has false theories as does aethism, Plato theory of mind is simply logical and this is due to the human mind deriving from the One Mind which is 'True Logic'!. While we have access to Platos core fundamentals on existance (which are correct only lack accurate detail!) we have lost many of the indepth analysis due to Religion burning down the Platonic academy and Library of Alexandria, hopefully with the use of new minds (human consciousness has evolved due to greater quality of survival, to distray from emotion (primarily used as a survival mechanism) and with the increasingly developing levels of logical thinking in individuals we can rewrite what has been lost and be consciously aware of our true existence and reality such as the Ancient Greeks were!
Thank you! I’ve reread the chapter on this subject in my textbook multiple times and struggled with understanding the wording. This video has helped me to better understand Aristotles stance.
i guess I'm quite off topic but does anyone know of a good site to stream newly released tv shows online?
@Jesse Kingston ehh I'd suggest Flixportal. You can find it thru google:D -maddox
@Maddox Landyn thank you, signed up and it seems to work =) I appreciate it !
@Jesse Kingston you are welcome :D
This is by the far the most engaging video about Aristotle's theory of soul! Very concise and very logical! Love the way you delivered it.
Hello, I'm a beginner in philosophy and, of course, already in love with Aristotle. You video was very useful for me, thank you for making it. Best wishes!
You're welcome. I'm so glad you found it helpful.
Excellent summarization and concisely articulated. Thank you.
You're welcome. Thanks for watching.
truly fantastic and eloquent
Thank you very much!
One of the most remarcable things that classical philosophers actually state about the soul is that the Soul does not need of Logic to Discern from good and bad, from right and wrong.
This is so outstanding because it means that Soul does not need to rationalize like humans does, intead it simply knows the difference and can act upon that and perhaps upon humans. A whole theory for human philosophy, metaphisics, spirituality and evolution can be made out of this.
Consciousness, perception and thinking. A theory of mind Plato
1. Plato's Mind (the One, the Self) is the cause agent, the singular cybernetic control point, of all perception,
thinking and doing in the universe, where control is top down from Mind.
2. Plato's Mind is timeless and spaceless, and being the only Reality, time and space
are not ultimately real, but are artificial constructions.
3. Since Mind is mental, not physical, all control and causation is mental, not physical,
and top down, since Mind is the singular (cybernetic) control point at the top.
4. Thus Mind plays the brain like a violin, not the reverse.
5. Man's mind (small m) is a passive mental subset, or monad, of Mind and under its own control.
6. This monad (our mind) is the mental correspondent of the brain and controls it. Our mind
controls our brain/body like a robotic structure.
7. Thinking is the intentional action of Mind (and thus mind) on mental entities such as ideas,
manipulating and transforming them intentionally (through will).
8. Qualia are simply sensory experiences, the conversion by Mind of sensory nerve signals into
mental sensory experiences in a fashion similar to the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental images.
9.. AQs Dennett has explained, In materialist thinking, there is no end to homunculi viewing the universe through a chain of homunculi. Leibniz terminates this infinite regress by making the last viewer the Self , which is at a higher level and suitably equipped.
10. Perception occurs as Mind converts physical sensory signals in the brain into mental experiences in one's mind.
11. These experiences can be made conscious (are made aware) by reperceiving or thinking them.
This is called apperception by Leibniz. Thus consciousness is apperception. (making sense of present reality through habitually constructed individual experiences)
12. The universe, according to Leibniz, is viewed directly by the One (the Self, the ONLY true perceiver), which views these scenes discretely and in sequence (analogous to snapshots) at discrete points as a whole indirectly through the totality of individual monads, and from their own perspectives.
13. This totality of sets of individual perceptions is then distributed in the proper order and perspective to each of the monads in the universe.
14. These individual sets are called "perceptions", and must be distributed in this indirect fashion
by Mind because each monad, in order to remain an individual, has no "windows", to use Leibniz's term.
15. The perceptions are made up of what the monad would see of its nearby neighbors
if it were allowed to do so (external environment experience) . This is purely mental, but allows us to speak in terms of spacial distances and directions, through these snapshots, between physical bodies,
which Mind, being spaceless, cannot actually directly.
16. Mind is also timeless, so that time is physically "created" as an artifact through
the actual motions of physical bodies in physical spacetime.
15. Intelligence is the nonphysical ability to freely make autonomous choices. It is a faculty of
nonphysical Mind, the Nothing out of which the physical universe exploded in the Big Bang.
17. Another name for this nonphysical intelligence is "life." Leibniz maintained that the entire
universe is alive.
18. Each monad is perpetual, created at the beginning of the universe and only annihilated by Mind.
19. Since monads can contain other monads, they can. as plants do through seeds,
and humans do through sexual reproducxtion, produce subsequent generations.
20. A robot or computer has no Mind or Self which has the wide bandwidth, intelligence
and intentionality to actually perceive , think, or do things, such as Mind does.
So, being without Mind, computers can have no actual intelligence or life. (without consciousness)
21. The current theory of mind is materialist. In contrast to the above, it uses the usual decapitated, mindless, or where mind is at best an abstract entity, not a living presence as in the above.
The materialist model of perception, thinking and doing, being Mindless, is dead.
This is a great video, you explain everything very well! Came across this video while looking for extra resources since I have my final exam soon.
Thankyou, i've just read the book and now, after watching your explanation, some subjects make a lot more sense, thank you very much.
You are very welcome
Ito palang yung gumagana na link dun sa nakalagay sa module . Nakakatamad tuloy panoodin magsalita si lodickaes🤦🏿♂️ hays😭😭
extremely helpful -- so clear, insightful. thank you for your help!
You're very welcome!
Thank you for being clear and concise
Glad it was helpful!
아리토텔레스는 신비하고 깊은 영혼을 가졌네.
감사합니다. 좋은 강의였어요.
Thanks for your lecture.
This was excellent and very helpful. Thanks, Dr. Anadale.
I've seen a couple of your videos and I'm enjoying them a lot! Thank you very much
Thanks so much. This was very helpful.
Thank you for your explanation! It was very helpful
Glad to hear that!
You are a real American philosophy professor
This was very nicely explained, thank you :)
Great video I have a test tomorrow on this
We all do
@@avemaria4788 i have the day after tomorrow ;)
great work.
Thanks! This helped me a lot.
Thanks for posting! Very helpful - de anima was a tough one to grasp
Glad it was helpful!
Aristotle was such a square. Plato definitely knew how to party...
Agreed viewing the similarities yet differences in Plato’s theories and Aristotles is very interesting
not at all
do not forget about plato's views on poetry and the "fine arts"
okay, featherless biped
Both of them deserve honor and respect
Platos beliefs denied sensual pleasures beyond anything even remotely close to what Aristotle believed. Plato was the ultimate ascetic
Prof. Chris,
This is great. I've been curious about Barnes for a while now; I'll definitely have to check him out. What's really fascinating is the point that it is not the soul which makes us "unique." I suppose, then, we would have to push back further to the self or "I" _which is manifested by the hylomorphic composite_ as the basis of personality. CSL is often *mis*-quoted as having said, "You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." But it is in fact the _person_ or _self_ or _ego_ which "has" both a body _and_ a soul.
I like trying to see if I can identify any of the books on your shelves. Spotted two so far.
Hope all's swell.
pax deorum,
Iohannes Trevorianus
According with my ignorance, one possible answer is that of concept historical: the human being belongs to movement cyclic of kosmos. That notion of human being 'individual' in society greek is problematic. (I hope I did not say bullshit).
Great work!
You are awesome sir. ❤
thanks for sharing these :)
Very helpful. Thank you.
Thank you!
Aristotle obtained his concepts regarding the soul from the Bhagavad Gita and various Brahman Priests teachings circa 1700BC . These teaching introduced the world to the concept of - One incorporeal God, and we souls being separate to God the Supreme Soul. The faculties of the soul, Mind, Intellect, Resolves and the qualities of the soul (the virtues)
Professor Chris, this is an excellent video. I am currently attending Loyola Marymount University and am having difficulty in understanding the material. Is there anyway I can get tutored on Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas and Kierkegaard. Please let me know if such thing is possible. I really appreciate it
Ziya, I'm glad you found the video helpful. Unfortunately, I cannot provide tutoring services right now. Good luck in your studies.
Thank you so much for translating into a concise and comprehensive video!
great video thank you
i love your library
Very helpful!!
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Can you recommend any texts for the amateur which simplify and summarise his works ?
I think _Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction_ by Jonathan Barnes is a good introductory text. People I know also speak highly of Mortimer Adler's _Aristotle For Everybody_, but I'm not as familiar with it. You might start with those two.
So basically, the soul offers us the capability to live and act at the same time. In between these are our basic human senses that guide humans to act - or as Aristotle wrote, not to act or have potential to act as well. Human agency path of sorts?
You could say that when one dies physically, they no longer need the Power of Nutrition and the Power of sensation/motion and are left with only the Power of intellect. Now because the Power of nutrition and Power of motion are both PHYSICAL, perhaps the Power of intellect lives on somehow after the physical death.
Or it is more indirect. You live, you write a book with some of your thoughts captured on paper, you die, and your thoughts live on as long as the book is intact and intelligible. This is at least true for Aristotle^^
its sounds like Aristotle's theory of the soul is compatible with non-reductive physicalism or panpsychism (the panpsychist would just say the all extant physical forms possess some proto-mental properties which is transmitted to the form of whatever they compose)
How is panpsychism physicalist???
thank you
I'm thinking the soul is that part of us that's able to appreciate truth, beauty and good. ?? Pleas
Regarding the question posed at 3:55, not only can Christianity work with this concept of the soul, but it fits the Bible far better than the idea of the soul as commonly portrayed. In Ezekiel 18:4, for instance, the Bible speaks of souls dying. The word soul is repeatedly used in the Bible as if it were the entire person, just as Aristotle described, rather than as if it were meant in some dualist sense. And scriptures such as Ecclesiastes 9:5 state that those who are dead know nothing, again in line with this view of the soul. And while the Bible gives multiple accounts of resurrections, these accounts make no reference to the person (or their soul) going anywhere during the time in between their death and resurrection.
thank you for this!
What about Lazarus in hell? What about Daniel speaking of suffering in hell? What of Revelations?
Definitely seems to fit. How do you incorporate the comment of Jesus regarding "fear not he who can kill the body but not the soul, rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hades(grave??)??
Just curious, it's a search for me. Have always considered both Aristotelian and Platonic perspectives may be true.
Ferb - i've read a lot of comments most are smoke and mirrors in layman terms, but you sir actually made a few points, i see why a "body" = matter never argued your point.. "Truth" so far the few that did responded 👉 agreed... thanks
In the Bible we are constructed of body soul and spirrit. Not dualistic. Body obviously what it is, soul which is mind,will,emotions, conciousness all of that and spirrit which God communicates with which we cannot access. The battle is for the soul, the body will die.
Aristotle has been refuted by modern science!
Hate that my vocabulary isnt as sharp but thus makes a lot of sense
Is the will of the power of Frederich Nietzche and the self-actualization of Aristotle the same or different? Like, It makes sense that the purpose of life: Actualizing my soul as much I can throughout the whole of my expectancy of life.
You can make a connection: both Nietzsche & Aristotle are concerned with making humans as excellent as possible. I do not think they are the same, though. Nietzsche's will to power is far more individualist, and Nietzsche seems to reject objective standards of excellence.
i kinda disagree with Aristotle binary view of human and animal souls. It is a gradient and animals can in fact do things we cant, just not involving abstract reasoning (as far as we know). Usually pertaining to senses. Also there is some evidence that some animals might have better memories, a broader range of emotions they can feel, and even different universal grammar (ex. dolphin language)
Aristotle didn't really regard human & animal souls as a binary so much as links in a "Great Chain of Being" (Latin scholars named this 'Evolution'), of which inanimate matter forms the base, then growing things, then animals, understanding that "Man is a social animal", with the realm of thought a 'link' emerging from social animals.
Science only recently confirmed that every Orca pod has its own dialect, but the ancients knew every wolf pack has its own howl: in this, social animals are close to us on the communication gradient: ie. we're born able to mimic the 'music' of our mother tongue, having heard it in the womb, thus we bond/link with the society, and thus persist regional accents/howls.
There's not a single line in the book that states that only humans have the intellectual soul. On the contrary, he states that there are a few animals that can think, but not only one...
The Soul is attached to the body by the umbilical cord of light essence as we sin the soul moves up and up away from the body,the soul does exist without he body, how can anyone think different.
There has to be an Afterlife if there is reincarnation. It would make no sense at all. Because it's the real you the soul that reincarnates. There had to be a resting period. For the soul to look back. At that life just lived. To go over it's karma and what it did well or what it needs to work on.
Aristotle never did Astral Projection is seems to me.
In theology is called Christian Mortalism or Soul Sleep
Why and who changed aristotles nose ?🤔🤔
Aristotle is a materialist.
I find myself confused by exactly how Aristotle uses the term form, or what he means by "formal cause" (which I take to be connected.) Often this is explained via the analogy of the statue, and the formal cause is identified as the shape of the statue. The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy says "the formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue." This leads my mind to think of the formal cause as the physical arrangement or pattern of objects, which seems to work for non-living things. However, as you and other sources mention, for Aristotle the soul is the form of a living thing, which seems to contradict the notion that formal cause is the shape or arrangement of an object (the calf is not shaped like a bull, the seed doesn't have the physical arrangement of the oak). If the soul of a living thing isn't it's physical arrangement, what precisely is it? It's definition (a thinking animal)? But definition is not the same thing as shape, so how would that work for the Stanford encyclopedia's demonstration?
Good question. Form cannot mean just shape, though that is the language Aristotle uses to describe it. I sometimes speak of formal cause as the 'identity' of a thing, the most obvious answer to 'what is it?' With living things, this is the sort of life the thing enjoys or acts out.
A cat is a cat because it has the form (soul, life-principle) of a cat. Having this distinguishes it from a cat-shaped arrangement of bone, flesh & fur. The living cat is alive precisely in the way its arranged parts work together to do cat-things: run, hunt, sense, etc.
With living things, it may also help to speak of the formal cause as that which living things have and dead things lack. The living cat has some active principle of unity in it (it heals injury, resists decay, etc.), which the dead cat no longer has.
Hope this helps a bit.
You write: "With living things, it may also help to speak of the formal cause as that which living things have and dead things lack. The living cat has some active principle of unity in it (it heals injury, resists decay,
etc.), which the dead cat no longer has."
Is this some sort of "elan vital" or "qi", a life-force if you will (or life-principle as you said), or is it something less mysterious than that? I think my modern notions of biology, DNA, animal classifications, etc. are getting in the way of me thinking appropriately about this. I find it hard to match my word usages to Aristotle's ancient usage.
Also, I really appreciate your response. Your channel is excellent.
Thank you very much.
I avoid speaking of "elan vital," or some other mysterious "life force," for just the reason you mention.
I think we often come at these questions with an implicit reductionist assumption that the best and most comprehensive explanation will be scientific and empirical. So when we think of life we think of DNA and other material explanations.
I think for Aristotle, the soul is not something mysterious or difficult to discover. It is evident in the observable activity of living things, in the experience of 'life.'
Perhaps we struggle because there is no easy way to capture these insights in modern materialist concepts. We have to learn a new conceptual vocabulary.
Could the soul from an Aristotelian perspective be the organizing substance of form with potential contained that is interfered with by subconscious patterning. Life is the struggle between programming and the organizing substance with the potential of becoming aware of a truer self that is more Platonic in nature?
Aristotle wanted to change ideas from millennia before him in order to make a name for himself. His ego misled him
The Bible in Genesis 2:7 states that: Man is the embodied breath of God.
In Job 32:8 the Bible defines the human mind as this embodied breath of God, as the human spirit.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 states the divisibility of human nature, into body and spirit, the disembodiment of the breath of God.
Some Christian denominations such as the Seventh Day Adventists teach the Aristotelian view that Man is indivisible, unity of body mind and spirit.
There are logical difficulties reconciling indivisibility of human nature with the Biblical resurrection, indivisibility implies extinction of the human person at death, so the only logical possibility is re-creation.
For Christians re-creation poses insurmountable logical contradictions, regarding individuals continuity from this life to resurrected life in eternity.
Martin Luther condemns Aristotle for teaching that the soul ceases to exist with the death of the body.
Christian faith rests on surviving death through resurrection, see 1 Corinthians ch15.
Isn't he just describing DNA, then?
The common interpretation of Plato as being a "dualist" ... is a grave error.
Why is that?
Hi
Your audio is too poor
Can u talk louder
Aristotle and Playdoh
I think the soul is just the life force that wants to be free.
This is my goal - to rewrite Human Theology according to Platonic views you see Religion has false theories as does aethism, Plato theory of mind is simply logical and this is due to the human mind deriving from the One Mind which is 'True Logic'!. While we have access to Platos core fundamentals on existance (which are correct only lack accurate detail!) we have lost many of the indepth analysis due to Religion burning down the Platonic academy and Library of Alexandria, hopefully with the use of new minds (human consciousness has evolved due to greater quality of survival, to distray from emotion (primarily used as a survival mechanism) and with the increasingly developing levels of logical thinking in individuals we can rewrite what has been lost and be consciously aware of our true existence and reality such as the Ancient Greeks were!
Aristotle is such an egg plant.
Aristotle couldn't be right about everything.
Christian theologians can do just about anything! Augustine the Neo-Plationist, Aquinas the Neo-Aristotalian. The world of forms, heaven.😉
The soul can't exist without a body. The body can't exist without the soul.
You gotta fix your head while talking.
Can u talk louder
Can u talk louder
Added captions: click CC. Hope it helps.